| From | rh <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 76/86] fs/btrfs: remove depends on CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL | Date | Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:20:30 -0800 |
| |
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:54:08 -0800 Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> The CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL config item has not carried much meaning for a > while now and is almost always enabled by default. As agreed during > the Linux kernel summit, remove it from any "depends on" lines in > Kconfigs. > > Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com> > Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> > --- > fs/btrfs/Kconfig | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/Kconfig b/fs/btrfs/Kconfig > index d33f01c..ccd25ba 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/Kconfig > +++ b/fs/btrfs/Kconfig > @@ -1,6 +1,5 @@ > config BTRFS_FS > - tristate "Btrfs filesystem (EXPERIMENTAL) Unstable disk > format" > - depends on EXPERIMENTAL > + tristate "Btrfs filesystem Unstable disk format"
No longer an experiment but still "Unstable". But is it broken? Or is it staging or a pet? From my naive point of view it seems like this set of patches is unleashing a bunch of bad stuff onto anyone that actually sets CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL "n". But I guess it's supposed to get caught in linux-next.
> select LIBCRC32C > select ZLIB_INFLATE > select ZLIB_DEFLATE > -- > 1.7.9.5 >
--
|